>>607877808the bible states his existence, and is the oldest known book in existence. id say it holds more ground in an argument about whether jesus existed than some historian writing anything in the present day

>>607879680Not a single historian took notic eof Jesus during his lifetime. Fact. The first citation of him in written history was by Flavius Josephus in the late 1st century AD, but it was proven to be a forgery. The next earliest is the roman historian Tacitus in the 2nd century AD.

There is literally not a single reference to Jesus Christ by a single contemporary historian.

>>607880666Explain to me why John the Baptist was so well documented during his lifetime, yet a man who apparently kicked his ass at miracles and was personally executed by a fucking Roman governor didn't leave a single impression on the historians of the time?

>>607882001 That's not his argument at all. While he does highlight weight of evidence, it speaks more to the validity of the initial affirmative claim.>>607882070 So talking about Jack Ryan makes him real?

>>607880071Actually Josephus references Jesus in his book of jewish history. He writes that Jesus was a wise teacher who gathered a large following and people claimed he performed miracles. According to Josephus, Jesus' disciples stole his body to fake his resurrection and expand his following.

There are so many in the first century it's unreal. And Josephus, even though you think it's a "forgery" wrote a hell of a lot about his existence as a teacher. Why argue with a faggot like you? Name me one credible historian who doubts he existed.

>>607882896>There are so many in the first century it's unreal.cite some, then>And Josephus, even though you think it's a "forgery" wrote a hell of a lot about his existence as a teacheracknowledges forgery, defends it because of length

Atheists who are completely unwilling to accept the fact that Jesus was a real human who existed, or that there is the slight possibility that God exists, are as bad as Christians who run around shouting hellfire at the heathens.

It's not the fact of whether Jesus was a human or not, this whole thing is a bait argument of atheists circejerking "show me the proof." None of you atheists would accept proof if Jesus knocked at your front door and magically gave you three heads, because you still would be set in your euphoric ways.

Who's crying? All I'm saying is that people who believe he exists generally will tend to always believe he exists no matter what, and people who believe he doesn't exist will always believe that he doesn't exist.

>>607884350>people who believe he exists generally will tend to always believe he exists no matter whatWrong. Many have been deconverted.>people who believe he doesn't exist will always believe that he doesn't exist.Wrong. Many have been converted.

>>607884350Show me a Roman record of his execution and I'd be completely satisfied that a historical Jesus existed. As it is now I think one probably did. BUT! I reiterate. Show me one single shred of motherfucking proof that one did. I beg of you.

>not even insulting me for valid reasons like short height, extra pounds from medicine, or disabled veteran status>>607883988 your post makes no sense in the context of atheists seeking evidence and accepting it>>607884425 it's not a matter of my belief, but your inability to understand the different weights and validity of evidence, as clearly shown in your post>>607884447 it's not a matter of superior intelligence

>>607877808>you use wew lad when you're lonely, when you feel like no one understands you, when you know you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, when you feel degraded, humiliated, forced. When your car won't start, when you have to wake up early to get ready for exams, when your parents die in the bliss is sheer ignorance, when you feel xenophobia affects those around you, when you feel like you want to make a change, a change for the better, a brighter 4chan, a 4chan of multicultural memes and joyful banter, then you know, you can always count of wew lad.

>>607878190Proof historical jesus existed?Try the books of the new testament, they have the apostle accounts of Jesus. Sure you dont have to take word for word of whats in the bible but its still got some great ideas that are relevant even today.

>In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees">Robert M. Price (an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.>Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.">Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

I am not sure if you've ever done any legitimate research before, OP, but when you study with a professor you realize there is a wealth of knowledge only found in libraries, costly subscriptions, and other professors' papers. As an example, I have seen writings of Machiavelli that are not available anywhere online for some reason, along with many other old authors works. Given this knowledge, it is difficult to say that a lack of reputable evidence from Google gives one a good reason to not believe in the existence of Jesus.

If this is something you truly care about finding the answer to, and you're a university student, schedule time with a professor. Otherwise, you'll have to dig deep elsewhere.

>>607885083 But that's wrong. Atheists don't (or shouldn't) want evidence in favor of their correctness, they're just properly understanding that the burden of proof rests on he who posits not he who negates.

I seriously don't think I've ever encountered a bigger neckbeard faggot than you. And I'm not talking about the content of your "arguments", I'm just talking about the way you speak. Get your head out of your ass, dude.

>>607885339>Try the books of the new testament, they have the apostle accounts of Jesus.uh, what?>Sure you dont have to take word for word of whats in the biblelike virgin births>but its still got some great ideas that are relevant even today.like the basic shit every society does, as in Golden Rule and other norms and mores

>>607885424>Richard A. Burridgebiblical professor>>607885471 odd, I was being polite but you're assblasted at how wrong you are and anyone criticizing your bollocks religion. good use of ad hominem, though, don't you think?>>607885531 onus probandi

>>607885724>uh whatHaha check out this fedora fagWhy dont you go educate yourself more on the history of how catholicism and the bible came to be>Like virgin birthsExactly, you dont have to take it word for word you just gotta find the symbolic value>Basic shit every society doeswhy dont you tell me what the indeginous americans, the vikings, and nazi germany had in common?

>>607885424Again. I reiterate. All I want is a shred of proof that a historical Jesus ever existed. At no point do I make the claim that a historical Jesus DIDN'T exist. I want proof on did.

Why do people take it for granted that a historical Jesus existed if there is no proof? Because there is no proof. If there was proof the world would know. I;m pretty sure I wouldn't have to blow a professor in some secret library to get a hold of it.

>>607886495Well asides from the new testament they have a few relics such as the shroud and many more writings from the past, all these are in the vatican. They even went to the hill where jesus was crucified and found the shed where the romans stored the wood and nails.

>>607885010I don't know... there were Christians within a short period of his death. Then soon, a LOT of Christians.Do you really think people were just that much more stupid 200 years ago? Obviously, many people talked of this guy and his sermons etc.I know it's not scientific, but if this many people had heard of his existence (not the whole "son of god"thing; just his existence) then he was probably a real person.

>>607886344 I didn't say I would reject evidence, I said there's not that's credible>>607886438>Exactly, you dont have to take it word for word you just gotta find the symbolic valueif you don't believe basic shit like this then you're the same as an atheist saying "muh values">>607886438>why dont you tell me what the indeginous americans, the vikings, and nazi germany had in common?indig and natives were pretty cool guys, and great Godwin>>607886550>I wasn't making fun of superior intelligence, I was pointing out that only children tout it around like OP and his ilk tend to do.>>607886550>I wasn't making fun of superior intelligence, I was pointing out that only children tout it around like OP and his ilk tend to do.they're not touting, though>>607886550>If you were intelligent, you'd realize that.you are

>>607886990Ok but you never mentioned the supernatural bullshit. I'm just talking about a man called Jesus existing, wandering around, telling his stories. That's it. I'm pretty sure this happened. The god stuff if bullshit, and I doubt that Jesus ever made these claims. Anyway, we'll never know.

>>607886495Read my post again:>there is a wealth of knowledge only found in libraries, costly subscriptions, and other professors' papers>If this is something you truly care about finding the answer to, and you're a university student, schedule time with a professor. Otherwise, you'll have to dig deep elsewhere.It is unlikely that you'll find good proof of the existence of any normal (as Jesus was not regarded as an outstanding existence at the time; crucifixions weren't uncommon) individual here.

>>607886338>>607885983I hope you are aware that your criticisms do not discredit my post. If anything, you note an obvious predisposition among some professors.

>>607886495What standard of proof? Historical standard, or physical standard? i.e., the same level of proof we have for anyone who ever existed before the 1800's and photography? Or a higher standard because it's somehow different?

>>607885010What I think is that initially someone wrote about a fictional Jesus themselves and other people started writing about him because it was a good story, and just built up on it. Or a person wrote about an actual crucifixion of someone named Jesus, but added stuff like magic and followers so that the story atleast has some base. It is even possible that others actually believed the story and faked stories to add to it so that people believe it more. Maybe a person named Jesus did eat dinner and talk with people but the person added drama and magic to it and got inspired for a story.

Could be many things.It is very possible that a Jesus existed, but it could just be made up. Not that he did any mircales, but just that he existed, or a person who looks like the typical Jesus on the cross.

Don't have any. Never claimed to either. Not a historian, nor, I'd wager, is anyone else in this thread, perhaps even this site.

Considering that, I don't see why one would feel justified in asking knowledge of people they know don't have it, instead of people who've actually studied and researched these things in an academic environment. Perhaps you should challenge actual historians instead of people who are only here to find porn and gore to save, then pat yourself on the back when they can't answer you.

>>607887076That's because people wanna believe things. It is human nature. They're afraid of death and find no meaning in life, and the fact that there was no knowledge of the world or physics or anything, some but barely, they wanna believe the first thing they can believe.

Cmon, there have been atleast 10k small pagan religions throughout humans existences. It's just human nature to believe things when they're desperate.

>>607887679I also want to say that I am in no way religious and don't think that there is a god. But there could be, and no-one will ever know for sure until they die. To say otherwise is really very unscientific in its own right.But there was probably a man called Jesus, on the balance of evidence.

Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.